Appeal 2007-0339
Application 09/872,600
'isolation' is to avoid data collisions, data loss and possibly system failure as
required by appellant's use of this term." (Id.)
The Appellants argue, "isolating the disk controller 110 from the other
masters is wholly different from 'isolating the first bus controller from the
bus' as recited in claim 1, for example. (Emphasis added). Contrary to what
is recited in the claims, neither the disk controller 110, the controller 107,
nor the other masters are ever isolated from the bus. Alexander, col. 3,
lines 38-52." (Reply Br. 2.) Therefore, the issue is whether teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested responding to a detection
signal by automatically isolating a first bus controller from a bus.
In addressing the issue, the Board conducts a two-step analysis. First,
we construe the independent claims at issue to determine their scope.
Second, we determine whether the construed claims would have been
obvious.
III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Our analysis begins with construing the claim limitations at issue.
"The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations
when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art." In re
Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing
In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir.
1983)).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013